Yes. undeniable. In fact more often it's lead to "gay people must be fixed" which is also inexcusable, but...
"In fact, it is an inescapable consequence"
.. NO. Tolerating people having distasteful and bigoted opinions, especially when they differ from yours, does not inevitably lead to those ideas beoming reality.
What do you think about the choice of the ACLU to defend the neo-nazis' right to protest in South Carolina? I abhor the content of their speech, but I think I agree it's important that it's defended.
On the other hand, what about the restrictions on neo-nazi speech in Germany after WWII? I think I agree that this restriction of speech was a good idea, as it prevented the possibility of that thinking continuing to take root and spread.
The difference between the two scenarios in my intuition is that one feels far removed from being "real" -- I don't sense that neo-nazis are close to taking over American government (Trump jokes aside) so I see it as important to protect it as minority speech; but in post WWII Germany, it was much closer to "real" that the hate speech would transform into hateful action, including restricting speech on the other side. So the probability of the outcome of speech matters (or the popularity of the speech) in my mind, and the more minority the speech, even if abhorrent, the more important it is to protect; but, as the speech approaches majority or becomes "action" then my intuition starts to flip. But it's always maximizing protection for minority speech, and draws a bright line between speech and risk of action.
In a nutshell - tolerance is a mutual agreement, and the protections of tolerance only apply to those who would uphold those protections. If you deliberately step outside these bounds - "gay people are evil" clearly doesn't tolerate gay people - you have lost the right to be tolerated.
I disagree with the ACLU on protecting neo-nazis on those grounds. They have positioned themselves outside of civil society, with the deliberate goal of destroying that society.
Does that mean we should restrict neo nazi speech? I honestly don't know. I do believe we shouldn't protect it, and I do believe we should shun people who subscribe to those ideas, but does that mean we should make it illegal? It's a very tough question.
It's not what I'm arguing, either. But I am arguing that Sam disingenuously conflates two things, and to make it more interesting would like to get rid of speech that harms his business interest while he's OK with speech that has provably caused physical harm over and over.
He's unhappy with his ethics being questioned, and dresses it up in a free speech argument. That is what I dislike about this.
[1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
The tolerance for "gay people are evil" has, more than once, led to "gay people must die". In fact, it is an inescapable consequence - if you declare people evil, you do declare you want to rid the world of them.
And coming from that point: You are still free to say this, of course. And everybody in the Bay Area is free to say it, too. But there are consequences to your speech. And the consequence to this particular speech is that most sane people will shun you. Tough luck, Sam. We've seen your colors when you desperately clung to Peter Thiel, you've just shown a little bit more of yourself.
And yes, of course we must allow the free exchange of ideas. But speech that strips away the humanity of others is not "an idea". It's hate. And it cannot be accepted in a civil society, without undermining the very foundations of that society.
I find it especially amusing that he thinks "gay people are evil" is perfectly fine, but "biotech work is unethical" is something that really shouldn't be said. He couldn't be much clearer about his actual intentions: he really wouldn't like criticism of the things that make him money, and to not annoy the existing "talent", bigotry should continue to be OK.
Putting that half-baked kind of intellectual dreck under a Galileo quote is a truly Silicon Valley thing.